1y ago

Cigarette-style climate warnings on food could cut meat consumption, study suggests

www.theguardian.com Cigarette-style climate warnings on food could cut meat consumption, study suggests

Durham University research found warnings of environmental or health impacts reduced choice of meals containing meat by 7-10%

People are used to seeing stark warnings on tobacco products alerting them about the potentially deadly risks to health. Now a study suggests similar labelling on food could help them make wiser choices about not just their health, but the health of the planet.

The research, by academics at Durham University, found that warning labels including a graphic image – similar to those warning of impotence, heart disease or lung cancer on cigarette packets – could reduce selections of meals containing meat by 7-10%.

It is a change that could have a material impact on the future of the planet. According to a recent YouGov poll, 72% of the UK population classify themselves as meat-eaters. But the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government on its net zero goals, has said the UK needs to slash its meat consumption by 20% by 2030, and 50% by 2050, in order to meet them.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

214 comments

whether i buy beef or not does not change whether the industry continues.
- If no one buys beef, there would be no beef industry, they don't produce stuff for fun.
  
  beef was produced long before anyone bought it. there is no reason to think it will ever stop.
  
  There won't be industrial style cattle farms if no one will buy their products, that surely can't be hard to comprehend. If it doesn't make any money, it's not gonna be done.
  
  there were industrial iPhone manufacturing facilities before anyone ever bought an iPhone.
  
  Sure, just like the egg must have come before the chicken - you have to build the first iPhone factory before you sell the first iPhone.
  How many Blackberry factories still operate? Palm pilot factories?
  Capitalists market goods and create demand for them. But that demand requires people to buy their products.
  Sheep production in the US peaked at 51 million head, back in 1884. Today, there's only 5 million head of sheep. Consumer preferences absolutely impacts what farmers grow.
  
  Sheep production in the US peaked at 51 million head, back in 1884. Today, there’s only 5 million head of sheep. Consumer preferences absolutely impacts what farmers grow.
  i think, given the choice, many people would prefer wool over sythetics, but the price difference is incredible. look at any american made textile from that era.
  i'm afraid you've fallen for the "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
  
  When was the last time you had mutton for dinner?
  In 1884, how often would you be eating mutton?
  
  if you have something to say, say it. i don't see the point in your rhetorical questions.
  
  do you have a plan to get everyone to stop buying beef?
  
  Well, isn't this post specifically about a plan to help with that? Also maybe by not spreading shit takes like yours and try to show the value of decreasing consumption.
  
  you are the one that proposed the solution required everyone to stop buying beef. if you don't have a plan, it's not a very good solution

214 comments